IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

LEE ARTERS T/A GREENDALE BUILDERS : CIVIL ACTION – LAW 

 Plaintiff, : 

 v. : NO. 02-CV-4388 

 : 

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. t/a, : 

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as successor in : 

Interest to ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA : JURY OF TWELVE (12) 

 : DEMANDED 

 and : 

 : 

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA : 

 Defendants. : 

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. INTRODUCTION

 Lee Arters t/a/ Greendale Builders (hereinafter “Greendale”) brought this suit to obtain a 

defense and indemnity in connection with a personal injury suit brought by it against Thomas 

Gorman in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The insurance 

policy under which Greendale seeks a defense and indemnity was issued by defendant Assurance 

Company of America. 

 On September 9, 2003, Greendale filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to 

its claim for a defense of the Gorman matter, arguing that the allegations of the underlying 

complaint were within the coverage afforded by the American Assurance policy. Defendants’ 

response to the motion was three-fold. First, defendants contended that a comparison of the 

allegations of the underlying complaint to the coverage afforded under the American Assurance 

policy demonstrated that employment-related exclusions contained in the policy applied to 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 29-2 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 1 of 5
preclude coverage. Second, defendants stated that Zurich American Insurance Co. had not 

issued any policy to Greendale and that plaintiff has offered no justification for continuing the 

suit against “Zurich American Insurance Co., t/a Zurich North America.” Finally, defendants 

noted that the Court is authorized to deny summary judgment to the moving party and enter 

judgment in favor of the nonmoving party, even in the absence of a formal motion. 

On November 20, 2003, the Court entered an Order denying Greendale’s motion for 

summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of defendants as to both the defense 

and indemnity issues. The Court’s Memorandum, filed on the same date, reviewed the 

allegations of the underlying complaint and concluded, based upon those allegations and 

Pennsylvania law governing interpretation of insurance policies, that “Gorman was, 

undoubtedly, an employee-in-fact and plaintiff is charged with negligence in hiring him, and in 

failing to supervise him adequately – allegations which plainly rule out coverage for Mr. 

Gorman’s injuries.” Memorandum at p. 3. 

Plaintiff has now moved for reconsideration of the Order contending (1) that the Court 

could not grant judgment in favor of defendants because there was no formal motion before it, 

and (2) that the Court reached the wrong result. For the reasons discussed below, defendants 

contend that Greendale has failed to make a case for reconsideration of the Court’s November 

20, 2003 Order and that the motion should, therefore, be denied. 

II. DISCUSSION

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or to 

present newly discovered evidence. Sauers v. Bensalem Township, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

18105 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2003)(quoting Max’s Seafood Café v. Quitneros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 

(3d Cir. 1999). Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, 

2 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 29-2 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 2 of 5
motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly. Johnson v. Agent Knorr, 2003 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 20211 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2003). A general dissatisfaction with the court’s ruling is 

not a valid ground for granting a motion for reconsideration. Id. See also Wilson v. Seven 

Seventeen HB Phila. Corp. No. 2, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5470 (E.D. Pa. March 7, 2001)(it is 

improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what it had already thought 

through). 

Greendale has not pointed to any newly-discovered evidence to support its motion for

reconsideration; rather, it rests its claim for relief upon an alleged procedural impropriety in the 

Court’s ruling. Specifically, Greendale contends that the Court could not grant summary 

judgment in favor of defendants because defendants did not seek such relief and the matter was 

not, therefore, before the Court. 

Contrary to Greendale’s contention, defendants did, in fact, seek an order of judgment in 

their favor. As noted by Greendale, defendant Zurich American Insurance Company specifically 

moved for dismissal of the Complaint against it on the basis that it did not issue an insurance 

policy to plaintiff and could not, therefore, have any obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff 

in the underlying action. In addition, however, the prayer for relief contained in defendants’ 

Answer to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment requested “that summary judgment 

be granted in favor of defendants as to all claims asserted against them.” Answer at p. 6. Similar 

relief was requested in defendants’ Memorandum of Law at p. 8. 

More importantly, the matters leading to the November 20, 2003 decision were clearly 

placed in issue by Greendale’s Motion and defendants’ Answer thereto and were, therefore, 

before the Court for disposition. As stated in defendants’ prior brief, if a court determines on 

motion for summary judgment that no material factual issue exists, it is authorized to deny 

3 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 29-2 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 3 of 5
summary judgment to the moving party and enter judgment in favor of the nonmovant. See

Yacavone v. Bailar, 455 F. Supp. 287 (D.C. Cir. 1978). This is precisely what occurred in this 

case and reconsideration of the Order on the basis that the Court lacked the authority to 

determine the matters before it is unwarranted. 

Greendale also complains that the Court failed to reach the correct result. As noted 

above, a general dissatisfaction with the Court’s ruling is not a valid ground for granting a 

motion for reconsideration and Greendale’s motion should fail on that basis alone. Further, 

Greendale has not pointed to any principle of law or material fact overlooked by the Court which 

might justify reconsideration. Instead, it relies upon an unsupported recitation of “facts” and a 

decision by the Honorable Timothy J. Savage in Continental Casualty Co. v. County of Chester, 

244 F. Supp. 2d 403 (E.D. Pa. 2003), a case whose only similarity to the instant matter is that it 

involves a claim for insurance coverage. 

The “facts” relied upon by Greendale were before the Court or could have been placed 

before the Court on Greendale’s initial motion. Further, the Court applied appropriate rules of 

insurance policy interpretation, including those set forth by Judge Savage in the Continental 

Casualty decision. The fact that the Court did not insert citations in support of well-settled 

principles of insurance law does not support plaintiff’s contention that reconsideration is 

required. Simply stated, plaintiff has not pointed to anything that would warrant reconsideration 

by the Court and the motion should be denied. 

4 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 29-2 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 4 of 5
III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants Zurich American Insurance Co. t/a Zurich North 

America (improperly named) and Assurance Co. of America respectfully request that an Order 

be entered denying plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP 

 BY: 

 Carl H. Delacato, Jr. 

 Atty. I.D. No. 32145 

 Attorneys for Defendants

Zurich American Insurance Co. t/a Zurich North 

America (improperly named) and Assurance Co. of 

America 

Dated: December 22, 2003 

129544-1 

5 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 29-2 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 5 of 5